All Ford did was make an overweight looking Mustang with fake pieces to
look like muscle car parts. I'll be disappointed if Chrysler follows
THOSE cues....
-Ryan
99 DA RC R/T
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
[mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of
jon@dakota-truck.net
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 5:57 PM
To: dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net
Subject: Re: DML: new LX car released... prayers answered!
"Chad Evans" <hemidak@msn.com> wrote:
: the desgin of the charger is only lack luster because they named it
the
: charger. would you be saying that if it was some other name not
associated
: with a muscle car of the past ?
That's a good point. I actually think the Charger looks pretty
decent
(especially the SRT-8 version) but when you invoke the name of a classic
muscle car, people have certain expectations, especially lately what
with
all the emphasis on "retro" vehicles which has mostly been created by
Ford
I think with the Thunderbird and the Mustang. Anyway, after Ford hit
the
ball right out of the park with the Mustang, I think that resurrecting a
classic vehicle name without using styling cues from that vehicle is
going to create some dissapointment right off the bat. Combine that
with the fact that the new Charger is a sedan (and thus completely
destroying any illusion that this vehicle is any sort of evolution or
tribute to the classic vehicle) and I think a lot of the recent
Charger animosity is pretty understandable.
If they had named it something completely different/new, none of
this would have been an issue. It would just have been a cool new
model with no expectations. Now, they need to spin right from the
model's introduction. Well, they seem to have done pretty well
with their HEMI marketing campaign, I guess this snafu will offset
that a bit. ;-) I dunno, the whole idea to name this car the
Charger seems dumb to me. They were probably trying to capitalize
on their past success and name recognition (like they did with the
HEMI), but the younger kids wouldn't know what a Charger is anyway
(thus no reason to call the car a Charger to attract that demographic)
and the older folks who *do* remember what the Charger was aren't
going to like trying to fit this square peg into a round hole. So
basically by using a classic name which does not match the current
vehicle, you annoy the hard core demographic and the remaining
groups either don't know or don't care what you call it anyway.
Why not just use a different name and attract the entire demographic?
Probably because they don't care and figure enough people will
buy them so that it won't make a difference in the long run. The
sad part is that they're probably right.
--
-Jon-
.-- Jon Steiger ---- jon@dakota-truck.net or jon@jonsteiger.com --.
| 1970 Barracuda - 1990 Dakota 'vert - 1992 Ram 4x4 - 1996 Dakota |
| 1996 Intruder 1400 - 1996 Kolb FireFly - 2001 Ram QC 3500 CTD |
`------------------------------------ http://www.jonsteiger.com --'
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.9 - Release Date: 6/11/2005
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.9 - Release Date: 6/11/2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 01 2005 - 09:48:06 EDT